Thursday, February 28, 2013

While working at the Detroit Tigers’ spring facility in Lakeland, Gov. Rick Scott announced today he will ask the Florida Legislature to set aside $5 million a year for projects specifically aimed at improving the Major League Baseball training facilities in the state.

“It’s my job as governor to make sure Florida remains the number one destination for spring training and that is why we will work to provide $5 million annually to only be used for spring training facilities,” Scott said in a statement that was released while Scott was participating in one of his “work days” with the Tigers at Joker Marchant Stadium in Lakeland.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

That's an empirical question that's probably beyond any percentage calculation, but my strong instinct would be to say that very few women who really wanted to have sex to begin with (meaning before sex actually occurred) are likely to claim "rape" the next day.

But since "very few" women actually claim rape at all relative to the number of times people are having consensual sex, as "very few" rapes occur relative to the number of times people are having consensual sex, that doesn't help us very much.

The question - which I agree is empirical - is how often it happens in cases where rape is alleged that the woman actually consented at the time and at some point after the sex (e.g., the next morning) changed her mind.

This is important because a rape charge - as everyone here agrees - is a serious charge.

Perhaps if it were to happen to you, it might clarify your thoughts on the matter.

Andy, honestly -- WTF are you talking about? Are you suggesting that the law is too strict with respect to "consent"? Make your point.

The point is simply that 99% of the world's population has no idea what the legal definition of rape is, and that virtually nobody thinks about legalities in an actual sexual situation. The point is that if all men were educated about the idea of "no means no", it would do far more to reduce the incidence of rape than having everyone assigned to taking a law course on the subject.

And yes, in a court case the legal definition is obviously critical. But you might note that I haven't said a word on this thread about the Steubenville case or any other particular rape case that's been in the news, for the simple reason that I haven't followed it closely enough to formulate an opinion. All of my comments here have been directed to the point of the best methods and messages of rape prevention, and nothing else.

The question - which I agree is empirical - is how often it happens in cases where rape is alleged that the woman actually consented at the time and at some point after the sex (e.g., the next morning) changed her mind.

This is important because a rape charge - as everyone here agrees - is a serious charge.

I strongly suspect that "morning after" regrets almost never reach the stage of formally filing a rape charge**, but obviously each case would have to be considered individually.

**Why on Earth would a woman ever want to put herself through a rape trial unless she had been really raped, or unless some extraordinary financial prospects entered her mind? In cases involving celebrities or other accused millionaires, perhaps such prospects may present themselves, but again, you'd also have to consider those cases individually.

Of course I agree with it, but changing the attitude of men towards what constitutes a woman's sexual "consent" would produce infinitely more progress than making Carrie Nations out of the nation's women. [EDIT: coke to tshipman] Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

90% of men have no problem figuring out consent. The other 10% are predators and don't actually care about conent; no education will help. All you can do is punish them harshly.

**Why on Earth would a woman ever want to put herself through a rape trial unless she had been really raped, or unless some extraordinary financial prospects entered her mind? In cases involving celebrities or other accused millionaires, perhaps such prospects may present themselves, but again, you'd also have to consider those cases individually.

On occasion they're cheating on their husband or boyfriend and try to cover it up. There was a pretty famous case like this in NY involving Police Chief Ray Kelly's son, who is a local TV anchorman.

He went out with a woman, they had sex, "sexted" back and forth for a few days, but then her boyfriend found out and she cried rape. He was suspended from his job for a while before he was exonerated.

Ray, I'm sorry to ask you directly, but you did so to me and I answered, so there we be. Can I get an answer to what I asked in #2494?

Sorry; I didn't answer it because it was a compound question with several elements in the same question, but I'll try now.

Ray, do you care anything at all for what rape victims have said in regards to how they felt in the wake of a rape or assault and how your insistence to be answered - and little bit of jumping up and down - on your minor point of inebriation adds to the shame of being raped in ANY situation and then greater freedom for rapes to be occur, being known the shame is too great for reporting the same?

Or would you like to focus instead on you and SBB changing what women are allowed to consider consent?

As Obama once said in a debate, "Um, that's a bunch."

Yes, I care what rape victims have said in regard to how they felt in the wake of a rape or assault. As I said, I think it is important for rape victims to come forward so that the perpetrators can be brought into the system and investigated/charged/tried/punished. I also care about reducing the number of rapes on the front end, and I think that education about not getting blackout drunk in various situations helps with that.

To me, the first goal should be to try to prevent rapes from occuring in the first place.

I don't think this point about inebriation is a "minor point."

The resistance came first, and is what necessitated the repetition.

You've really got nothing. The resistance to our repeated point came before we repeated the point. Conspiracy theories?

Huh? We made the point that getting blackout drunk in various situations increases the chance of being raped. That is the point that was resisted, causing it to be repeated.

Your advice is not great (since thousands of women get raped when they are fully sober), but it does marginally increase their likelihood of getting away from the bear--they're not the easiest target anymore. However, your advice is spectacularly poor when it comes to dealing with the bear.

TShipman keeps insinuating that someone was getting raped in Steubenville regardless. I still want to see evidence that this is even remotely the case.

Of course I agree with it, but changing the attitude of men towards what constitutes a woman's sexual "consent" would produce infinitely more progress than making Carrie Nations out of the nation's women. [EDIT: coke to tshipman] Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

90% of men have no problem figuring out consent. The other 10% are predators and don't actually care about consent; no education will help. All you can do is punish them harshly.

I'm not as sure as all that about your percentages. To quote Casey Stengel's famous maxim: He knew that 5 of his players would always love him and 5 would always hate him, and his job was to keep those 5 haters from the 15 who were undecided.

(And no, I'm not comparing baseball to rape. That's not addressed to anyone in particular, but I'd rather say it now than have to say it later.)

Similarly, I think that there are plenty of men, especially young men, who very easily feel mixed emotions in sexual situations, about what's required of men in law and morality and what's required of "men" to prove to themselves that they're "real" men among their often misogynistic peers. The concept of "no means no" is not something that children are born with, but rather something that's taught to them by the culture in many ways, spoken and unspoken. And anything that can help to prevent rape rather than having to punish it is something that IMO is all to the good.

The response to that, of course, is the invariable "men will be men". I'm not so sure I'm quite all that pessimistic. This country's done a pretty fair job in re-educating white people about racial etiquette and mores over the past 60 years, and I see no reason why it can't be done, even if much more gradually and sporadically, in the case of sexual mores and attitudes.

The response to that, of course, is the invariable "men will be men". I'm not so sure I'm quite all that pessimistic. This country's done a pretty fair job in re-educating white people about racial etiquette and mores over the past 60 years, and I see no reason why it can't be done, even if much more gradually and sporadically, in the case of sexual mores and attitudes.

So, in Andy's perfect world, a man will never again instigate a sexual relationship. Good to know.

Similarly, I think that there are plenty of men, especially young men, who very easily feel mixed emotions in sexual situations, about what's required of men in law and morality and what's required of "men" to prove to themselves that they're "real" men among their often misogynistic peers. The concept of "no means no" is not something that children are born with, but rather something that's taught to them by the culture in many ways, spoken and unspoken. And anything that can help to prevent rape rather than having to punish it is something that IMO is all to the good.

Doesn't severely punishing rape send the message that "no means no"?

Maybe I'm the optimist here, but I think a very, very high percentage of men faced with a clear no would stop all sexual conduct.

I think the problem with a lot of gray-area rape situations, where the couple is on a date, or being amorous, is there never is a clear no. No means no, but the woman really needs to say no.

Similarly, I think that there are plenty of men, especially young men, who very easily feel mixed emotions in sexual situations, about what's required of men in law and morality and what's required of "men" to prove to themselves that they're "real" men among their often misogynistic peers. The concept of "no means no" is not something that children are born with, but rather something that's taught to them by the culture in many ways, spoken and unspoken. And anything that can help to prevent rape rather than having to punish it is something that IMO is all to the good.

I doubt there are many young men who charge forward with sex after a woman says "No," without some subsequent, obvious change in that "No." (*)

Do you have any citations supporting this assertion?

(*) Practiclly every married guy has had sex with a woman who didn't want to have sex with him the very first time he wanted to have sex with her. What's the "cooling off" period before the man's permitted to run the idea back up the flagpole? Six months? A year? Ten years?

Yes, I care what rape victims have said in regard to how they felt in the wake of a rape or assault. As I said, I think it is important for rape victims to come forward so that the perpetrators can be brought into the system and investigated/charged/tried/punished.

I apologize for the multiple question. Here is a single follow-up: What in your opinion keeps rape victims, overall, from coming forward?

That's a categorically unfair reading of Ray's points.

I disagree. SBB wants to address the issue of consent. Ray cited specific agreement with that post. I was snarky, absolutely; but if snark is unfair you've got a lot to atone for, pot.

(*) Practiclly every married guy has had sex with a woman who didn't want to have sex with him the very first time he wanted to have sex with her.

I like how right before you said this you demanded data for some other assertion. I'm guessing yours is just absolute truth and it requires none, right?

TShipman keeps insinuating that someone was getting raped in Steubenville regardless. I still want to see evidence that this is even remotely the case.

Because recidivism is very high in rapists. The chances are overwhelming that even if all the girls at that party only drank mildly, someone would have gotten raped. If not that night, another night when the same behavior was taking place.

I would say that the counterclaim is exceedingly unlikely. That claim would be that if no one got blackout drunk at that party, no one would have been raped, despite the clear culture of entitlement, and overwhelming arrogance of the young men involved.

***

We can see the truth of this by looking at other cultures. All the women in the Congo, for example, are not blackout drinkers. Indian women in Delhi do not imbibe more than sorority girls.

Edit:

To me, the first goal should be to try to prevent rapes from occuring in the first place.

Ray, I agree strongly with this, and it's why I think the language about blackout drinking is so counterproductive. What percent of rapes would be eliminated if absolutely no women ever drank to the extent that they blacked out? The fact of the matter is that this is a relatively uncommon scenario.

Practiclly every married guy has had sex with a woman who didn't want to have sex with him the very first time he wanted to have sex with her.

In the most liberal reading of "rape culture" practically every sexually active heterosexual man is guilty of rape at some point in their lives. There's a reason DIABC put that bit in her first entry in this thread about "think about if you've ever raped someone; think hard!" or whatever.

Because recidivism is very high in rapists. The chances are overwhelming that even if all the girls at that party only drank mildly, someone would have gotten raped. If not that night, another night when the same behavior was taking place.

I actually agree with that. These guys were predators just waiting for an easy target.

TShipman keeps insinuating that someone was getting raped in Steubenville regardless. I still want to see evidence that this is even remotely the case.

Yes, and he's also insinuating that _these two defendants_ would have raped someone in the future, if not that night, then some other night. And while I will agree that they might well have sexually assaulted someone in the future under similar circumstances, I do not think it's so clear that had similar circumstances not presented themselves, the defendants would have raped again anyway. That is one reason why in my view it is important to move away from the silly "rape is rape" rebuttal and not pretend that someone jumping out of the bushes at night with a knife is the same category of criminal that rapes someone in this circumstance or in other circumstances. The criminal who jumps out of the bushes cannot, in my view, be changed or rehabilitated or educated away from that criminal act to begin with. But I believe it is reasonable to suggest that the two defendants here might have been reached with education beforehand, and I also believe it is reasonable to suggest that the two defendants here may well not have ever raped now or in the future had these circumstances not presented themselves; and if that is the case then we CAN reduce the number of rapes by (among educating men as noted) educating women that putting themselves in these vulnerable positions where they are blackout drunk at this kind of a party increases their chance of being sexually assaulted.

I left all of that as a single paragraph because I know it will just be boiled down to an accusation of me blaming the victim and excusing the criminals and saying the victim is responsible. And I say that anyone who does that is not a serious person who has no interest in actually considering all of the various factors that go into these situations and into this problem. I have stated repeatedly that I have contempt and disgust for the two defendants and what they did in this case; I believe based on what I know of the case that they rightly were investigated/charged/tried/sentenced.

Because recidivism is very high in rapists. The chances are overwhelming that even if all the girls at that party only drank mildly, someone would have gotten raped. If not that night, another night when the same behavior was taking place.

In order to insinuate that the two Steubenville assailants were serial rapists just looking for a mark, you're going to need more than "because recidivism is very high in rapists." To paraphrase formerly_dp from earlier, assertion is not an argument. What evidence, other than pure guessing, do you have that the two boys in question were trolling for someone to rape, rather than out of hand in the very particular situation of the crime they committed?

I would say that the counterclaim is exceedingly unlikely. That claim would be that if no one got blackout drunk at that party, no one would have been raped, despite the clear culture of entitlement, and overwhelming arrogance of the young men involved.

Yes, and he's also insinuating that _these two defendants_ would have raped someone in the future, if not that night, then some other night. And while I will agree that they might well have sexually assaulted someone in the future under similar circumstances, I do not think it's so clear that had similar circumstances not presented themselves, the defendants would have raped again anyway.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that men willing to do what they did, would find an opportunity to do it at some point. If they didn't take pity on a completely incoherent, girl who was vomiting and unable to stand, I don't think they'd have compunction in other circumstances.

In the most liberal reading of "rape culture" practically every sexually active heterosexual man is guilty of rape at some point in their lives. There's a reason DIABC put that bit in her first entry in this thread about "think about if you've ever raped someone; think hard!" or whatever.

Correct, but just to be clear, I'm talking about you're out on a date, things get going, they're stopped, you stop. You go out on another date, get consent, act upon it, and get married.

Which is to say that, unless the "NO" is permanent, it isn't a guide to much of anything. It's just another banal cliche.

Because they repeatedly violated and humiliated a passed out, vomiting woman. If that didn't strike them as wrong, I can't imagine they'd hesitate to use force when denied what they wanted, in a more gray situation.

In order to insinuate that the two Steubenville assailants were serial rapists just looking for a mark, you're going to need more than "because recidivism is very high in rapists." To paraphrase formerly_dp from earlier, assertion is not an argument. What evidence, other than pure guessing, do you have that the two boys in question were trolling for someone to rape, rather than out of hand in the very particular situation of the crime they committed?

They don't have any, and the idea of judging people based on imagined, speculative crimes is reprehensible anyway.

Because they repeatedly violated and humiliated a passed out, vomiting woman. If that didn't strike them as wrong, I can't imagine they'd hesitate to use force when denied what they wanted, in a more gray situation.

Apparently in addition to murder laws we also need to stamp out the "culture of murder" or something.

Are murder victims less likely to come forward because there are public shamings of murder victims? Because that's precisely what's been found with sexual assault. You can pretend this is not the case, and that conversations like this aren't part of the problem, but doing so requires you to ignore what actual rape victims, and rapists themselves, have said about the climate for coming forward. You saw SBB do this in trying to cleave Stuebenville (thanks, Ray) off from "knife at the throat" rape, as if the same impulse is not behind the acts in both circumstances. You also see this in the military, where a hostility to reporting leads to drastic underreporting of sexual assaults (13.5% of the estimated 19,000 in 2010).
==

But I believe it is reasonable to suggest that the two defendants here might have been reached with education beforehand, and I also believe it is reasonable to suggest that the two defendants here may well not have ever raped now or in the future had these circumstances not presented themselves;

Yeah, one has a hard time seeing how anyone could get victim-blaming from this narrative-- a drunk woman is a "circumstance that presented itself" and the rapists in question were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was more of an accident than a rape, really.

In order to insinuate that the two Steubenville assailants were serial rapists just looking for a mark, you're going to need more than "because recidivism is very high in rapists." To paraphrase formerly_dp from earlier, assertion is not an argument. What evidence, other than pure guessing, do you have that the two boys in question were trolling for someone to rape, rather than out of hand in the very particular situation of the crime they committed?

How about because they didn't appear to see anything wrong in what they did? That they videotaped it, and carried her from party to party, violating her in front of multiple witnesses. Does that seem like a very particular situation to you?

We aren't judging them on speculative crimes, we're judging them on the real one they committed.

No you're not, you're saying that if they hadn't committed the crimes they committed in the circumstances in which they committed them, they would have committed other crimes anyway. That's horseshit through and through.

Are you seriously arguing that someone who has committed one rape isn't much more likely than average to commit another?

Describe their deeds accurately without the misplaced "rape" and there might be something to talk about. Until then, you're just throwing stuff against the wall hoping it sticks, and that's not a sport that interests me.

How about because they didn't appear to see anything wrong in what they did? That they videotaped it, and carried her from party to party, violating her in front of multiple witnesses. Does that seem like a very particular situation to you?

No you're not, you're saying that if they hadn't committed the crimes they committed in the circumstances in which they committed them, they would have committed other crimes anyway. That's horseshit through and through.

Describe their deeds accurately without the misplaced "rape" and there might be something to talk about. Until then, you're just throwing stuff against the wall hoping it sticks, and that's not a sport that interests me.

No. The sexual assault (per SBB) or rape (per the laws of Ohio) gives us additional information about these 2 perps. It gives us insight into their character. It shows they have no compunction about violating a woman. That let's us predict that left to their own devices, they will probably violate women.

Hopefully the shock of incarceration will cure them of this, but I wouldn't bet on it.

If someone steals a car, they're likely to steal another. If someone robs a house, they're likely to rob another. If someone rapes/sexually assaults, they're likely to do it again. Recidivism is rampant in all criminality.

Are murder victims less likely to come forward because there are public shamings of murder victims? Because t hat's precisely what's been found with sexual assault. You can pretend this is not the case, and that conversations like this aren't part of the problem, but doing so requires you to ignore what actual rape victims, and rapists themselves, have said about the climate for coming forward. You saw SBB do this in trying to cleave Stuebenville (thanks, Ray) off from "knife at the throat" rape, as if the same impulse is not behind the acts in both circumstances. You also see this in the military, where a hostility to reporting leads to drastic underreporting of sexual assaults (13.5% of the estimated 19,000 in 2010).
==

Why not just dispense with trials altogether, and let the charge be the conviction? That would probably encourage more victims to come forward, too.

Since you won't understand the question, here's the answer: Because there are trade-offs in almost every part of the criminal justice system that sometimes lead to unfortunate results.

You know who else "cleaves" Steubenville from "knife at the throat" rape? The State of New York.

I apologize for the multiple question. Here is a single follow-up: What in your opinion keeps rape victims, overall, from coming forward?

Likely part of it is shame in being thought of as a tramp, as you say.

And that comes from the part of our society (sorry, Snapper) which shames people for having sex outside of marriage or at least outside of a commited relationship. American society on the surface is very uptight about sex. People (both men and women) are often for example reluctant to share their sex lives with members of their family, especially their parents.

So being thought of as a tramp is very likely a reason why women don't want to come forward -- as well as a number of other reasons, such as Andy mentioned above, e.g., they don't want to go through a lengthy process where the authorities are investigating and then they're tied into a trial and they have lawyers looking into their sex lives. But part of that has nothing to do with your point; nobody wants to be part of a trial process, no matter what the trial is about.

But more fundamentally, I think the fear of being thought of as a tramp is not caused by someone like me saying "Gee, let's educate the young girl that getting blackout drunk at a high school party increases the chance she'll be sexually assaulted." The fear of being thought of as a tramp comes from our uptight society on the issue of sex.

Apparently in addition to murder laws we also need to stamp out the "culture of murder" or something.

Well yes, "honor killings" are in fact illegal in most Mid Eastern countries - so laws alone are not enough if the underlying culture does not regard a legal crime as being a moral crime or that great of a moral crime.

And booze was illegal during prohibition...

despite the clear culture of entitlement, and overwhelming arrogance of the young men involved.

but you could just as easily replace "rape culture" with "jock culture" if this is your explanation.

I think the use of the concept of "rape culture" is almost wholly unproductive since most men don't commit rape and most juries in rape cases do not automatically acquit- a claim of "rape culture" might be accurate if you had large numbers of public figures openly blaming victims, if large numbers of juries were opening practicing jury nullification, refusing to convict whenever the victim had been drinking or wearing short skirts*-

sure there exists some anecdotal evidence, a random cop or ADA might refuse a case because he deems the victim unsympathetic, you may get a random Pol babbling about "real rape"- and the reaction is instant outrage -
a religious "leader" in Australia last year compared rapists and rape victims to dogs eating meat left in the street (women wearing revealing clothing) - how could you blame the dogs (i.e, rapists)- the reaction was instant outrage escalating to death threats....

There are rapists - and they are a tiny minority- and there are those who may fairly be called rape apologists- and they are a small minority.

*When I was growing up I'd say that 75% of the people connecting miniskirts to rape were old women... most of that generation died off, fewer people today obviously make that [mis]connection, but they seem to be 50/50 male/female, what the have in common with that older cohort are very narrow life experiences - they are either virgins or lifelong monogamists- they never actually "dated" or even interacted with the opposite sex in a non-dating social scene.

Because recidivism is very high in rapists. The chances are overwhelming that even if all the girls at that party only drank mildly, someone would have gotten raped. If not that night, another night when the same behavior was taking place.

And I believe this is sheer nonsense.

I would say that the counterclaim is exceedingly unlikely. That claim would be that if no one got blackout drunk at that party, no one would have been raped, despite the clear culture of entitlement, and overwhelming arrogance of the young men involved.

Again: sheer nonsense.

Ray, I agree strongly with this, and it's why I think the language about blackout drinking is so counterproductive. What percent of rapes would be eliminated if absolutely no women ever drank to the extent that they blacked out?

I can't give you a specific percentage but among rapes where the woman was blacked out drunk or extremely drunk, I would say a significant percentage would be eliminated.

And that comes from the part of our society (sorry, Snapper) which shames people for having sex outside of marriage or at least outside of a commited relationship. American society on the surface is very uptight about sex. People (both men and women) are often for example reluctant to share their sex lives with members of their family, especially their parents.

I've never shamed anyone. I've just stated what I believe (and traditional religions all teach) is morally right and wrong.

Traditional Catholic/Christian philosophy holds that we are all sinners, all in need of redemption. So shaming a sinner makes no sense. What you're supposed to do is point out the sin, and encourage the sinner to repent and stop sinning.

That's the whole point of the famous "He who is without sin cast the first stone... Go and sin no more" parable.

The issue is that modern people can't seem to separate criticism of their actions from condemnation of them as a person.

Why not just dispense with trials altogether, and let the charge be the conviction? That would probably encourage more victims to come forward, too.

I did not realize BTF was a courtroom where the woman was being tried. I thought this was an internet discussion forum. My mistake.

You know who else "cleaves" Steubenville from "knife at the throat" rape? The State of New York.

To the best of my knowledge, it's well-accepted that chemical castration doesn't cure rapists, because rape is not a crime about sex but about power. So, you may make them unable to shove their penis up there, but they will find something else. That you agree with NYS and disagree with Ohio does not make one "proper" and the other "improper". And you specifically stated above that what the Ohio kids did was differentiated not just by the lack of penile penetration, but by the lack of violence used to accomplish the desired end.
==

But more fundamentally, I think the fear of being thought of as a tramp is not caused by someone like me saying "Gee, let's educate the young girl that getting blackout drunk at a high school party increases the chance she'll be sexually assaulted." The fear of being thought of as a tramp comes from our uptight society on the issue of sex.

Of course you don't think that-- you're not reasoning from evidence, you're reasoning from Ray's baseless assumptions about how females will react to his condescending advice. What could possibly go wrong?

Instead of spending all of this time on BTF arguing about what you think women will think, you could have read a bit about how victims react to their assaults. But you're more interested in Ray's pronouncements about how 16 year-olds should act than you are in learning anything new about this topic.

I can't give you a specific percentage

Because you're speaking with your anus instead of your brain.

but among rapes where the woman was blacked out drunk or extremely drunk, I would say a significant percentage would be eliminated.

But that is a narrative informed by evidence and reality, rather than politics, right Ray?

Have to agree with Ray & Sam (& possibly others; I'm not exactly keeping score) here. What happened in Steubenville in this instance strikes me as very much a crime of opportunity. Take away or drastically lessen the opportunity, & lt's unlikely that something comparable would've occurred, or so it seems to me.

Which doesn't lessen the crime, at least IMHO, & doesn't make the perpetrators any less reprehensible.

Is anyone besides SBB for real on this whole, it wasn't "legitimate rape"?

SBB's argument is that if Steubenville, OH had been "Steubenville, NY" this crime would have been prosecuted as sexual assault, not rape. He is pointing out that there's enough grey area in the legal definitions of the crime of rape to ask which district defines the term most correctly. He obviously sides with NY.

It might be better phrased in a less combative conversation, and the point might be better made if the distinction were between OH and PA. If, theoretically, PA had NY's definitions of rape on the books, the difference between "rape" and "sexual assault" for the Steubenville duo would have literally been an 8 mile drive east.

Have to agree with Ray & Sam (& possibly others; I'm not exactly keeping score) here. What happened in Steubenville in this instance strikes me as very much a crime of opportunity. Take away or drastically lessen the opportunity, & lt's unlike that something comparable would've occurred, or so it seems to me.

The other side of this particular sub-argument are writing about "rapists" the way Pam Geller writes about "Muslims." It's appalling.

Which doesn't lessen the crime, at least IMHO.

Of course not. But the fact that you feel you have to call that out every single time you make a point that goes against doctrinaire talking points is part of the problem.

SBB's argument is that if Steubenville, OH had been "Steubenville, NY" this crime would have been prosecuted as sexual assault, not rape. He is pointing out that there's enough grey area in the legal definitions of the crime of rape to ask which district defines the term most correctly. He obviously sides with NY.

It might be better phrased in a less combative conversation, and the point might be better made if the distinction were between OH and PA. If, theoretically, PA had NY's definitions of rape on the books, the difference between "rape" and "sexual assault" for the Steubenville duo would have literally been an 8 mile drive east.

What difference does it make?

Is sexual assault not a felony? Is the sentence for sexual assault less than one year?

Is sexual assault not a felony? Is the sentence for sexual assault less than one year?

Yes, and no. (Meaning yes, it's a felony.)

Not sure the point of the question though. In New York -- advanced enough to distinguish easily distinguishable things -- they aren't "rapists." If some lesser jurisdiction lumps a bunch of dissimilar crimes into an amorphous, oafish blob, that's all well and good, but don't expect me to recognize it as anything other than what I've described.

Is sexual assault not a felony? Is the sentence for sexual assault less than one year?

I'm going to assume that it's a matter of degree, literally. If there's such a thing as second- or third-degree sexual assault in a given jurisdiction, I'd say there's a good chance it's a misdemeanor.

Edit: But maybe not. A quick Google of "third-degree sexual assault" gives me a bunch of references to Wisconsin law & tells me it's a felony.

I think (without researching it) that the crime alleged in Steubenville was traditionally considered to be "sexual assault" in the vast majority of if not all jurisdictions in the US, but at some point over the past couple of decades it morphed into "rape" in an increasing number of jurisdictions.

If the jurisdiction in question considers it rape, I'll consider it rape. I've not pushed back on that term. And sheesh, SugarBear, it's difficult enough to get people here to focus on the actual issues being discussed, let alone to throw that monkey wrench into the mix.

What happened in Steubenville in this instance strikes me as very much a crime of opportunity. Take away or drastically lessen the opportunity, & lt's unlikely that something comparable would've occurred, or so it seems to me.

it's unlikely that something comparable would have occurred that night in that location- but what about another night in another location?

Maybe it's possible that these "kids" did what they did because (in part) of sexual curiosity - which they'll have less of when they get older and more experienced- or maybe they did what they did because they are amoral jackasses who have done this or similar before and will/would do so again if and when they get the opportunity.

I'm not gonna claim to be a mind reader- maybe other times, other issues, other threads, not here :-)

It might be better phrased in a less combative conversation, and the point might be better made if the distinction were between OH and PA. If, theoretically, PA had NY's definitions of rape on the books, the difference between "rape" and "sexual assault" for the Steubenville duo would have literally been an 8 mile drive east.

It wouldn't have been "rape" in Pennsylvania either, which requires sexual intercourse, including intercourse per os (mouth) or per anus. Though I wouldn't commit fully to this without more review than I want to do, it looks like it wouldn't have even be a felony in PA, which would have required a "foreign object," not a finger as the penetrating mechanism.

I think (without researching it) that the crime alleged in Steubenville was traditionally considered to be "sexual assault" in the vast majority of if not all jurisdictions in the US, but at some point over the past couple of decades it morphed into "rape" in an increasing number of jurisdictions.

I don't know how definitive The Encyclopedia of Rape, ed. Merrill Smith (2004, Greenwood Press), can be considered (for one thing, it obviously regards the act as rape by definition), but here's its take:

A variety of legal defitions abound in the United States with regard to foreign-object rape. In some states, rape with a foreign object is classified as sexual assault. In New York State, digital rape (using a finger) is included in the foreign-object definition. In Pennsylvania, foreign-object rape is considered deviate sexual intercourse. In Georgia, “aggravated sexual battery” is the name given to foreign-object rape.

If the jurisdiction in question considers it rape, I'll consider it rape. I've not pushed back on that term. And sheesh, SugarBear, it's difficult enough to get people here to focus on the actual issues being discussed, let alone to throw that monkey wrench into the mix.

The piling on, rhetorical and otherwise, is what got me involved in this thread to begin with. And the insistence that "rape is rape" when it obviously isn't threw Heathcliff Slocumb levels of gas on the fire.

A variety of legal defitions abound in the United States with regard to foreign-object rape. In some states, rape with a foreign object is classified as sexual assault. In New York State, digital rape (using a finger) is included in the foreign-object definition. In Pennsylvania, foreign-object rape is considered deviate sexual intercourse. In Georgia, “aggravated sexual battery” is the name given to foreign-object rape.

All of which is pedantic legalism, but this entire conversation hinges on pedantic legalism (when it's not being blown over by the tornadoes of moral outrage.) Per this, if this crime had happened 10 miles east of where it occurred, it wouldn't have been "rape" by the legal definition of the jurisdiction. For what that's worth.

Isn't that pretty much what the law is, by its very definition? People don't go to law school just for a grounding in common sense (not that any two parties could probably agree on what that is), AFAIK.

We're not calling them a "rapist." They are rapists. They were convicted in a court of law. They took video of the act. They are rapists. Jesus H ####### Christ.

They were convicted in a particular court of law of a jurisdiction that has it's particular definitions of the law. Rape is defined in law of a jurisdiction, as all crimes are. (Some jurisdictions may make a certain drug offense a felony; another jurisdiction might make it a misdemeanor.) It isn't just a term for lay persons to conflate and bandy about casually. Not to minimize what happened in the Steubenville case, there are degrees of rape in the statutes of most jurisdictions. Thus, all rape is not equal or the same, any more than all cancers are, and should not be spoken of in a way that makes a lesser offense seem just as awful as the worst offense.

Not at all. You probably just agree with him more and thus assume he is.

Ray's been more logically grounded too.

Edit, or maybe as TShipman has said merely since Ray's avoided making creepy and misogynistic arguments he only appears more logically grounded to me since I prefer not-creepy and non-misogynistic arguments

I think the point of whether it's "rape" or "sexual assault" is that different jurisdictions define it differently, and therefore when someone suggests that what happened in Steubenville should more properly be thought as "sexual assault" rather than "rape," that someone is shouted down amidst wails of outrage, but if this were being discussed with people with cooler heads rather than with people on their hind legs howling at the moon, that would be a legitimate conversation to have, seeing as even today different jurisdictions define it both ways.

At its core, those howling at the moon want to treat every instance of sexual assault or rape as if it was someone jumping out of the bushes at night with a knife and attacking a female jogger. I happen not to think that's useful or helpful to anyone, and I don't think that pointing out that A is different from B and C and D "excuses" anything.

Isn't that pretty much what the law is, by its very definition? People don't go to law school just for a grounding in common sense (not that any two parties could probably agree on what that is), AFAIK

Yeah, but looking at actual laws is a creepy, horrible, misogynistic argument.

(And only respond if your answer is "Yes." I am going to deem that any response that starts with "No" is out of bounds and contributes to the anti-Ray culture and that you have no standing to respond in that fashion.)

Yeah, but looking at actual laws is a creepy, horrible, misogynistic argument.

Except that that's what happened, isn't it? The fact that someone -- was it you? -- insisted on dragging NY State's law into this as the only antidote to the sheer barbarism supposedly evinced in benighted Ohio's criminal code wasn't at all germane to anything, AFAICT. In Ohio (which is the jurisdiction being talked about here), who gives a damn what another state says, & why should they?

Yes. And again, if they had done the same thing in New York, they would not be rapists, because they would not have been convicted of rape in a court of law. You can't have it both ways.

So, anarchy, then?

I think the point of whether it's "rape" or "sexual assault" is that different jurisdictions define it differently, and therefore when someone suggests that what happened in Steubenville should more properly be thought as "sexual assault" rather than "rape," that someone is shouted down amidst wails of outrage

I think one of my biggest problems is this constant refrain of the shouting down. WhoTF is shouting you down? You're being disagreed with, which a lot of you can't stand. Sometimes strongly. So?

Edit, or maybe as TShipman has said merely since Ray's avoided making creepy and misogynistic arguments he only appears more logically grounded to me since I prefer not-creepy and non-misogynistic arguments

Could you point me to somewhere recently where I've made a "creepy, misogynistic argument?" Inquiring minds want to know, man.

Except that that's what happened, isn't it? The fact that someone -- was it you? -- insisted on dragging NY State's law into this as the only antidote to the sheer barbarism supposedly evinced in benighted Ohio's criminal code wasn't at all germane to anything, AFAICT.

It was entirely germane. At one point the mere act of distinguishing the various gradations of sexual crime was deemed to be aiding and abetting, actively encouraging, and participating in the "rape culture."

Nor did any of the hysterics mean "rapist under the laws of Ohio" when they screamed "rapist." They obviously meant "rapist" in the most loaded sense, as was pointed out long, long ago.

Every person to comment on this subject - *every single one of us* - has stipulated that the crime was heinous, monstrous and rightfully prosecuted. So the snark about resume building is just bullshit.

("Rape" fits much better in a headline, of course.)

And that is SBB's point, to be perfectly honest. It "fits the headline" better, and the most important point for some of us seems to be making sure the headline blares appropriately.

(And only respond if your answer is "Yes." I am going to deem that any response that starts with "No" is out of bounds and contributes to the anti-Ray culture and that you have no standing to respond in that fashion.)

First of all I think that you have to address your own culpability with respect to this so-called "anti-Ray culture" you have posited.

Secondly, isn't it more accurate to speak of an "anti-libertarian blog-post culture?"
You do not seem to be subject to mocking here any more than DMN is- and his name (real name) is used as a punchline on more than a few liberal blogs - where as far as I can tell the sepcifically anti-Ray mocking is limited to BBTF

Of course they do. What do you think I was doing, shooting them for saying it? Trying to get them kicked off campus? Morty, this was the Goldwater-loving Duke of the early-mid 60's, not the Berkeley or Harvard of 2013.

Trying not to make it personal here, but, yes, I do think there are those here that you have aligned yourself with that would do exactly that if they could--or would tolerate that happening. There’s another Duke incident that seems to be whistling past your eyes and ears. We must not pretend that false accusations are just some paltry phantasmagoria that in reality is inconceivable and hardly needs bothering about.

Do we as society, and our institutions, get to factor that or don't we?

"Factor it in?" By definition, we do. Let that voice override a more humane perspective on that particular issue? I would hope not.

And there reason for a definition. What is this “more humane perspective”. Is that euphemism for not getting what you want?

How do you decide what's humane?

Individually, I can only decide that for myself. Individually, I can only try to influence collective opinion in that direction.

And the same applies to me (or anyone), right?

I'm well aware that my positions on various subjects aren't held by majorities in either Congress or the Supreme Court. To the extent that this bothers me in specific cases, I can try to make my voice heard to change those decisions, but in the meantime I can either choose to obey the law or violate it and accept the consequences.

This, though, is not a mechanism for resolving differences. How is that done? (It’s not just about subjectivity—we’ve got a railroad to run.)

High school kids have been getting drunk and hooking up for decades. High school and college girls have gotten themselves drunk so as to become less sexually inhibited for decades, which often results in quite intended sexually-related activity. This episode seems to have mildly crossed an extremely blurred line.

Is it just me, or does that hand-waving fall a bit short of the following account --

Every person to comment on this subject - *every single one of us* - has stipulated that the crime was heinous, monstrous and rightfully prosecuted.

If so, that doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to consciousloy sift the political from some processes. The Yankee-Red Sox narrative may be political, but we still have rules (laws) that apply to each the same.

Is it just me, or does that hand-waving fall a bit short of the following account --

It's just you.

The first part of the remark was aimed at Snapper's unrealistic attitudes toward out-of-wedlock sex, and alcohol, and his efforts to portray the kids as "barbarians."

The second part has been re-covered and I stick by it. The act of digital penetration without consent is a very serious crime, rightfully prosecuted and rightfully prosecuted here. I've never said or thought anything else, and it's laughable that anyone would conclude otherwise based on the thread or other threads.

Except for the part about calling it rape, which upset you so much you had to make New York pick a fight with Ohio?

What upset me was labelling juveniles "rapists" when they weren't, and suggesting that they spend 10+ years in adult prison.

It was rhetoric and attitudes without mercy or empathy, bordering on repellant. (Then the extreme modern liberalism, and "rape culture" and "standing" and "creepy, horrible, misogynistic argument" stuff entered the picture and it became farce.)

If you think of rape as simply "unsolicited and unwanted sexual penetration", then perhaps your confusion will go away.

That's not the legal definition of the crime of rape. A person can, for instance, not want to engage in sex but anyway consent to doing so. Changing your mind after the event--wanting to take back your consent--should not count either. Unfortunately, it sometimes does. Ideology has infiltrated law here to an extent that makes some sexual crimes absurd and absurdly unfair and unjust.

Consent, though, is what matters. It is what disposes of the issue. How that is conveyed and how it is perceived is where the problem comes in with some (especially "lesser") rapes.

It was rhetoric and attitudes without mercy or empathy, bordering on repellant.

I positively refuse to have any mercy or empathy with these boys, these young men, however you wish to define them. My mercy only goes so far and it does not go there. If that is so repellent that it is where you find the focus of this issue to be, I will gladly be the brunt and easily stand so labelled.